In Competition… Competition & Public Procurement Law: June 2026 Update
July 2026Welcome to the eleventh edition of In Competition.
June saw new and maturing regimes produce hard legal and commercial consequences. In Brussels, the Commission imposed interim measures against Meta and the EU General Court confirmed the breadth of the Commission’s document-gathering powers. In the UK, the FCA moved to settle a competition investigation into commodity futures day traders, while the CMA pressed the digital markets regime into practical conduct requirements and named parties in a construction-sector bid-rigging investigation.
The Court of Appeal handed down the first appellate judgment under the Subsidy Control Act 2022 in Weis v Greater Manchester Combined Authority, clarifying how the CAT approaches the question of whether financial assistance constitutes a subsidy. Meanwhile, the Procurement Act 2023 continued its transition into its contract-management phase, with section 70 payment transparency requirements bringing ongoing reporting obligations into force.
The common thread is that competition, subsidy control and procurement law are converging around the same questions: how public money is deployed, how markets are structured, how access to key platforms is controlled, and how quickly regulators and courts are prepared to intervene.
Digital Markets and Competition Enforcement
Commission imposes rare interim measures on Meta over WhatsApp AI access (9 June 2026)
On 9 June 2026 the European Commission imposed interim measures on Meta to preserve the status quo pending full competition investigation: the first use of that power since Broadcom in 2019. The investigation concerns a Meta policy that rendered competing AI providers inaccessible on WhatsApp while Meta AI remained available. The Commission’s preliminary view is that Meta has held a dominant position in the EEA consumer communication apps market since at least January 2023 and that withdrawal of previously available third-party access may constitute an abuse. A revised March 2026 Meta policy introducing a fee for access was treated as equivalent in practice to the original block. Meta was ordered to restore third-party access on prior terms pending a final decision.
Why does this matter?
The Commission has signalled a willingness to use interim measures in fast-moving digital markets where permanent distortion could occur before an investigation concludes; general-purpose AI assistants are the kind of “key moment” market where it will act quickly. It also illustrates a familiar refusal-to-supply theory applied to AI markets: denying rivals access to an established gateway. Businesses operating a platform or gateway others depend on (e.g. insurers and financial services firms building distribution or data interfaces) should note restricting access previously granted, or repricing it to the same effect, carries an Article 102 risk. Interim relief is a realistic route to keeping a gateway open while complaints are investigated.
CMA consults on Apple and Google steering requirements and Apple NFC access (30 June 2026)
On 30 June 2026 the CMA consulted on proposed steering conduct requirements for Apple and Google following designation as having strategic market status in mobile platforms. The proposals would prevent restrictions on app developers directing users to external websites for transactions and require any related fees to be fair and reasonable. A call for evidence was also issued on possible interventions requiring Apple to provide access to NFC functionality on iOS. Responses on steering proposals are invited by 28 July 2026 and on the NFC requirement by 21 July 2026.
Why does this matter?
This is the next operational stage of the UK digital markets regime, moving from designation and commitments to practical commercial rules governing how platform users can reach customers, take payments and access device functionality. For businesses selling through apps or building mobile-enabled services, steering and NFC access shape customer acquisition, payment costs, product design and switching. NFC access could create new opportunities for payment service providers seeking greater control over customer payment journeys on iOS.
CMA names businesses in roofing and construction services investigation (30 June 2026)
The CMA updated its Competition Act investigation into suspected bid-rigging in roofing and construction services, naming the 12 businesses under investigation. Originally focused on services supplied to schools eligible for the Department for Education Condition Improvement Fund support, the investigation now extends to other schools and public and private sector bodies. The CMA intends to continue reviewing evidence until at least the end of 2026 and has stressed that no competition law infringement should be assumed.
Why does this matter?
Public-sector tendering remains a high-risk enforcement environment. Bid-rigging allegations in school maintenance and construction works attract attention because they combine public money, repeat tendering, local supplier networks and stretched procurement teams. Businesses should ensure there are no direct or indirect discussions between competitors regarding prices, bids, territories, capacity constraints or customer allocation. For principals and insurers, the expansion of the investigation also demonstrates how enforcement risk can extend beyond the procurement exercise that first triggered investigation.
FCA moves to settle competition investigation into commodity futures day traders (24 June 2026)
On 24 June 2026 the Financial Conduct Authority announced a proposed settlement of a competition investigation into 11 commodity futures day operating through a trading arcade. Although part of a common trading group, each operated as an independent contractor and therefore, for competition-law purposes, a separate competing business.
The FCA made no infringement finding but expressed concern that the traders frequently exchanged competitively sensitive information about trading intentions, positions and recent orders, and may have coordinated strategies. To settle, the traders offered commitments to change information-handling procedures, to undertake annual competition-law training delivered by an England-and-Wales-qualified competition lawyer, and to make a £1 million ex gratia payment to the Government’s Crisis and Resilience Fund.
Why does this matter?
Competition law reaches well beyond conventional corporate cartels. Independent traders, consultants, franchisees and other self-standing operators remain competitors and must act independently. The case highlights the FCA’s active competition enforcer role, and information exchange is squarely on its radar. It also provides an example of resolving competition concerns through behavioural commitments, mandatory training and payment in lieu of a fine without a formal infringement decision.
Subsidy Control
Court of Appeal dismisses the first appeal under the Subsidy Control Act 2022 (SCA): Weis v GMCA (29 June 2026)
On 29 June 2026 the Court of Appeal dismissed the first appeal from a CAT review under section 70 of the SCA in Aubrey Weis v Greater Manchester Combined Authority [2026] EWCA Civ 825. The case concerned approximately £120 million in loans made by GMCA from its Housing Investment Loan Fund to SPVs connected with the Renaker group for residential developments in Manchester.
Mr Weis argued that the loans were unlawful subsidies conferring an economic advantage. The CAT rejected that challenge in 2025, finding the loans were made on commercial market operator terms and did not amount to subsidies. On appeal, Mr Weis contended that the CAT had wrongly decided the subsidy question for itself and should have confined itself to a review of GMCA’s decision-making material. The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that whether financial assistance satisfies the statutory definition of a subsidy is a prior question the CAT must determine for itself before exercising its review jurisdiction.
Why does this matter?
This is the most important UK subsidy control judgment since the regime came into force. It confirms that subsidy status is not simply reviewed through the lens of public law rationality: where a subsidy’s existence is disputed, the CAT can decide the question itself. That gives challengers a meaningful route to test public funding decisions. The result also shows the limits of process-based challenges: where financial terms fall within the range a rational market operator might accept, a challenge may fail even if the authority’s internal process was imperfect. For local authorities, combined authorities, developers, funders and infrastructure investors, Weis v GMCA is the leading authority on how the commercial market operator principle will be tested in UK subsidy control litigation.
EU Competition Policy
General Court confirms the Commission’s power to review personal devices (3 June 2026)
On 3 June 2026 the EU General Court upheld the Commission’s approach to document-gathering in its “gun-jumping” investigation into Vivendi’s acquisition of Lagardère. The Commission required the production of emails, messages and other electronic documents from devices of employees and journalists (including any device used at least once for professional communications) with an encrypted, ring-fenced data room to protect personal data and journalists’ sources. The Court held that this was proportionate and justified: capturing devices used even once for work was reasonable because any narrower threshold risked relevant material escaping review, and the data room gave adequate protection to freedom of expression and journalistic sources. Vivendi has said it will appeal.
Why does this matter?
The judgment confirms the breadth of the Commission’s investigative powers: personal devices, with entire message threads, can be pulled into competition and merger investigation. Businesses should keep personal communications off work-enabled devices; should scrutinise the scope of any request for information and, where appropriate, challenge it; and should negotiate protective arrangements for sensitive material at the outset. The point applies beyond merger control: the same powers underpin cartel and abuse investigations, and the reasoning will influence how other authorities, including the CMA, approach device review and dawn raids.
Public procurement law
Procurement Act 2023: section 70 payment transparency becomes operational (June 2026)
June saw further implementation of the Procurement Act 2023. Section 70 requires contracting authorities to publish quarterly information about payments of more than £30,000 (including VAT) made under public contracts. The Cabinet Office publishing updated guidance on 19 June and additional guidance on 23 June 2026, covering section 69 payment compliance notices, section 71 contract performance information and below-threshold supplier identifiers.
The obligation applies to public contracts procured under the Act where procurement commenced on or after 1 April 2026, subject to exclusions including private utility contracts, concession contracts, school contracts, certain transferred Northern Ireland authority contracts, and below-threshold contracts.
Why does this matter?
Procurement Act transparency is now a live contract-management issue. Payment information will no longer sit invisibly inside internal systems: procurement, finance and contract-management teams will need to work from shared data. For suppliers, particularly in construction, infrastructure and professional services, payment performance and public contract cashflows will become more visible to authorities, competitors, auditors and the market. That will affect bid positioning, reputational risk and dispute narratives. Strong payment and performance records will become part of a supplier’s competitive story; weaker systems may become a public liability.
Procurement as industrial policy: British goods and national resilience
The policy direction tracked through recent editions continued in June. The Public Procurement (British Goods and Services) Bill remains before Parliament, while the Government’s “Growing British industry, jobs and skills” programme continues to align procurement with industrial strategy, economic resilience and opportunities for SMEs and social enterprises.
Among the more consequential proposals is a power for Ministers to designate specific goods, works or services as critical to national or economic security, requiring contracting authorities to consider those factors when applying national security exemptions. For suppliers in steel, energy, defence-adjacent supply chains and critical digital infrastructure, the practical questions are increasingly provenance and resilience; for authorities, the direction of travel points towards more explicit resilience criteria and greater use of the national security exemption.
Concluding thoughts
June 2026 reinforced three themes. First, competition enforcement is becoming more operational and interventionist: the Commission has used interim measures, the FCA has used concurrent competition powers, and the CMA has applied digital markets and cartel tools in commercially significant sectors. Second, subsidy control has reached the Court of Appeal: Weis v GMCA gives public authorities, developers and challengers their first appellate guidance on how the commercial market operator principle will be tested under the Subsidy Control Act 2022. Third, procurement law is moving decisively into the contract-management phase: section 70 payment transparency, performance reporting and construction-sector enforcement all point in the same direction. Public contracting is now a continuing compliance environment, not a one-off award process.
The practical message is clear. Public money, platform access, market conduct and contract performance are all becoming more visible, more data-driven and more contestable. Authorities and suppliers should assume that decisions made today may be scrutinised not only at award stage, but throughout delivery, funding, payment and future market participation.
If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this update, please contact Paul Henty and Charlie Bayliss.
Download PDF
